Volunteer Summary
CONSORT Flow Diagram
Overall status
Characteristic | Overall1 | Control1 | Treatment1 |
|---|---|---|---|
time_point | |||
1st | 118 | 58 | 60 |
2nd | 82 | 48 | 34 |
1n | |||
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1181 | control, N = 581 | treatment, N = 601 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 118 | 38.41 ± 17.09 (18 - 148) | 39.90 ± 19.46 (18 - 148) | 36.97 ± 14.46 (20 - 70) | 0.354 |
gender | 118 | 0.175 | |||
female | 86 (73%) | 39 (67%) | 47 (78%) | ||
male | 32 (27%) | 19 (33%) | 13 (22%) | ||
occupation | 118 | 0.633 | |||
civil | 6 (5.1%) | 2 (3.4%) | 4 (6.7%) | ||
clerk | 23 (19%) | 9 (16%) | 14 (23%) | ||
homemaker | 8 (6.8%) | 3 (5.2%) | 5 (8.3%) | ||
manager | 16 (14%) | 9 (16%) | 7 (12%) | ||
other | 11 (9.3%) | 4 (6.9%) | 7 (12%) | ||
professional | 15 (13%) | 11 (19%) | 4 (6.7%) | ||
retired | 4 (3.4%) | 2 (3.4%) | 2 (3.3%) | ||
service | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 3 (5.0%) | ||
student | 28 (24%) | 15 (26%) | 13 (22%) | ||
unemploy | 2 (1.7%) | 1 (1.7%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
working_status | 118 | 76 (64%) | 37 (64%) | 39 (65%) | 0.891 |
marital | 118 | 0.461 | |||
divorced | 4 (3.4%) | 1 (1.7%) | 3 (5.0%) | ||
married | 27 (23%) | 15 (26%) | 12 (20%) | ||
single | 86 (73%) | 41 (71%) | 45 (75%) | ||
widowed | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | ||
marital_r | 118 | 0.690 | |||
married | 27 (23%) | 15 (26%) | 12 (20%) | ||
other | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 3 (5.0%) | ||
single | 86 (73%) | 41 (71%) | 45 (75%) | ||
education | 118 | 0.038 | |||
primary | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
secondary | 14 (12%) | 3 (5.2%) | 11 (18%) | ||
post-secondary | 18 (15%) | 12 (21%) | 6 (10%) | ||
university | 86 (73%) | 43 (74%) | 43 (72%) | ||
university_edu | 118 | 86 (73%) | 43 (74%) | 43 (72%) | 0.763 |
family_income | 118 | 0.664 | |||
0_10000 | 12 (10%) | 5 (8.6%) | 7 (12%) | ||
10001_20000 | 21 (18%) | 8 (14%) | 13 (22%) | ||
20001_30000 | 23 (19%) | 11 (19%) | 12 (20%) | ||
30001_40000 | 20 (17%) | 10 (17%) | 10 (17%) | ||
40000_above | 42 (36%) | 24 (41%) | 18 (30%) | ||
high_income | 118 | 62 (53%) | 34 (59%) | 28 (47%) | 0.194 |
religion | 118 | 0.674 | |||
buddhism | 5 (4.2%) | 4 (6.9%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
catholic | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 3 (5.0%) | ||
christianity | 46 (39%) | 23 (40%) | 23 (38%) | ||
nil | 60 (51%) | 29 (50%) | 31 (52%) | ||
other | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
taoism | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
religion_r | 118 | 0.957 | |||
christianity | 51 (43%) | 25 (43%) | 26 (43%) | ||
nil | 60 (51%) | 29 (50%) | 31 (52%) | ||
other | 7 (5.9%) | 4 (6.9%) | 3 (5.0%) | ||
source | 118 | 0.084 | |||
bokss | 50 (42%) | 20 (34%) | 30 (50%) | ||
17 (14%) | 13 (22%) | 4 (6.7%) | |||
9 (7.6%) | 6 (10%) | 3 (5.0%) | |||
other | 19 (16%) | 9 (16%) | 10 (17%) | ||
refresh | 23 (19%) | 10 (17%) | 13 (22%) | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1181 | control, N = 581 | treatment, N = 601 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | 118 | 19.19 ± 2.19 (15 - 25) | 19.02 ± 2.03 (15 - 24) | 19.37 ± 2.34 (15 - 25) | 0.388 |
setv | 118 | 11.17 ± 1.60 (8 - 15) | 11.03 ± 1.56 (8 - 15) | 11.30 ± 1.65 (8 - 15) | 0.371 |
maks | 118 | 44.91 ± 3.62 (36 - 57) | 44.67 ± 3.59 (36 - 52) | 45.13 ± 3.67 (38 - 57) | 0.492 |
ibs | 118 | 15.40 ± 2.43 (5 - 20) | 15.41 ± 2.14 (10 - 20) | 15.38 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.946 |
ers_e | 118 | 12.21 ± 1.47 (8 - 15) | 12.14 ± 1.47 (8 - 15) | 12.28 ± 1.47 (9 - 15) | 0.592 |
ers_r | 118 | 11.12 ± 1.58 (7 - 15) | 11.02 ± 1.57 (7 - 14) | 11.22 ± 1.58 (8 - 15) | 0.494 |
pss_pa | 118 | 44.72 ± 4.43 (30 - 54) | 44.47 ± 4.26 (30 - 54) | 44.97 ± 4.61 (31 - 54) | 0.541 |
pss_ps | 118 | 26.47 ± 8.18 (12 - 56) | 26.67 ± 7.63 (13 - 42) | 26.27 ± 8.73 (12 - 56) | 0.789 |
pss | 118 | 44.75 ± 11.64 (21 - 77) | 45.21 ± 11.26 (22 - 72) | 44.30 ± 12.07 (21 - 77) | 0.674 |
rki_responsible | 118 | 21.03 ± 4.14 (7 - 32) | 20.95 ± 4.11 (13 - 29) | 21.12 ± 4.19 (7 - 32) | 0.826 |
rki_nonlinear | 118 | 13.26 ± 2.69 (6 - 22) | 13.12 ± 2.54 (6 - 20) | 13.40 ± 2.85 (7 - 22) | 0.576 |
rki_peer | 118 | 20.55 ± 2.15 (16 - 25) | 20.47 ± 2.07 (16 - 25) | 20.63 ± 2.25 (16 - 25) | 0.674 |
rki_expect | 118 | 4.75 ± 1.09 (2 - 8) | 4.60 ± 1.11 (2 - 8) | 4.90 ± 1.05 (2 - 7) | 0.139 |
rki | 118 | 59.60 ± 6.05 (44 - 81) | 59.14 ± 5.86 (45 - 76) | 60.05 ± 6.23 (44 - 81) | 0.415 |
raq_possible | 118 | 15.64 ± 1.80 (12 - 20) | 15.74 ± 1.89 (12 - 20) | 15.53 ± 1.72 (12 - 20) | 0.533 |
raq_difficulty | 118 | 12.42 ± 1.40 (9 - 15) | 12.53 ± 1.38 (9 - 15) | 12.30 ± 1.43 (9 - 15) | 0.367 |
raq | 118 | 28.05 ± 2.92 (21 - 35) | 28.28 ± 2.97 (21 - 35) | 27.83 ± 2.88 (21 - 35) | 0.413 |
who | 118 | 14.71 ± 4.36 (6 - 25) | 14.62 ± 4.24 (6 - 25) | 14.80 ± 4.50 (6 - 25) | 0.824 |
phq | 118 | 3.70 ± 3.77 (0 - 18) | 3.66 ± 3.73 (0 - 17) | 3.75 ± 3.83 (0 - 18) | 0.892 |
gad | 118 | 3.21 ± 3.56 (0 - 21) | 3.38 ± 4.11 (0 - 21) | 3.05 ± 2.95 (0 - 12) | 0.617 |
nb_pcs | 118 | 51.63 ± 7.19 (25 - 63) | 51.88 ± 7.17 (25 - 63) | 51.38 ± 7.27 (27 - 62) | 0.709 |
nb_mcs | 118 | 50.39 ± 8.55 (22 - 70) | 50.20 ± 8.89 (22 - 68) | 50.57 ± 8.27 (35 - 70) | 0.816 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.276 | 18.5, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.349 | 0.387 | -0.410, 1.11 | 0.368 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.201 | 0.319 | -0.827, 0.425 | 0.531 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.374 | 0.484 | -0.575, 1.32 | 0.442 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
setv | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.214 | 10.6, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.266 | 0.300 | -0.322, 0.853 | 0.377 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.299 | 0.224 | -0.140, 0.739 | 0.185 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.156 | 0.341 | -0.826, 0.513 | 0.648 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
maks | (Intercept) | 44.7 | 0.485 | 43.7, 45.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.461 | 0.680 | -0.872, 1.79 | 0.499 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.254 | 0.418 | -1.07, 0.566 | 0.545 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.330 | 0.642 | -0.928, 1.59 | 0.609 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ibs | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.309 | 14.8, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.030 | 0.434 | -0.880, 0.820 | 0.944 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.128 | 0.257 | -0.376, 0.633 | 0.620 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.503 | 0.395 | -0.272, 1.28 | 0.207 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ers_e | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.189 | 11.8, 12.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.145 | 0.264 | -0.373, 0.664 | 0.583 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.302 | 0.184 | -0.662, 0.059 | 0.104 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.429 | 0.281 | -0.121, 0.979 | 0.130 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ers_r | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.192 | 10.6, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.199 | 0.269 | -0.328, 0.727 | 0.460 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.096 | 0.232 | -0.359, 0.551 | 0.680 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.176 | 0.351 | -0.512, 0.864 | 0.618 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
pss_pa | (Intercept) | 44.5 | 0.581 | 43.3, 45.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.501 | 0.815 | -1.10, 2.10 | 0.539 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.950 | 0.633 | -2.19, 0.291 | 0.137 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.358 | 0.963 | -1.53, 2.24 | 0.711 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
pss_ps | (Intercept) | 26.7 | 1.044 | 24.6, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.406 | 1.464 | -3.27, 2.46 | 0.782 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.936 | 0.958 | -0.941, 2.81 | 0.331 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.55 | 1.466 | -4.43, 1.32 | 0.292 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
pss | (Intercept) | 45.2 | 1.487 | 42.3, 48.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.907 | 2.086 | -5.00, 3.18 | 0.664 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.90 | 1.356 | -0.754, 4.56 | 0.164 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.82 | 2.076 | -5.89, 2.25 | 0.383 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
rki_responsible | (Intercept) | 20.9 | 0.538 | 19.9, 22.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.168 | 0.754 | -1.31, 1.65 | 0.824 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.134 | 0.521 | -0.887, 1.15 | 0.798 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.115 | 0.796 | -1.67, 1.44 | 0.886 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
rki_nonlinear | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.371 | 12.4, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.279 | 0.520 | -0.740, 1.30 | 0.592 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.236 | 0.369 | -0.959, 0.486 | 0.523 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.540 | 0.563 | -0.563, 1.64 | 0.340 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
rki_peer | (Intercept) | 20.5 | 0.288 | 19.9, 21.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.168 | 0.403 | -0.623, 0.958 | 0.678 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.083 | 0.290 | -0.486, 0.651 | 0.776 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.085 | 0.443 | -0.782, 0.952 | 0.848 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
rki_expect | (Intercept) | 4.60 | 0.135 | 4.34, 4.87 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.297 | 0.189 | -0.073, 0.667 | 0.118 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.121 | 0.159 | -0.191, 0.433 | 0.450 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.097 | 0.241 | -0.376, 0.570 | 0.688 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
rki | (Intercept) | 59.1 | 0.791 | 57.6, 60.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.912 | 1.110 | -1.26, 3.09 | 0.412 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.112 | 0.768 | -1.39, 1.62 | 0.884 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.621 | 1.174 | -1.68, 2.92 | 0.598 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
raq_possible | (Intercept) | 15.7 | 0.232 | 15.3, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.208 | 0.326 | -0.846, 0.430 | 0.524 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.380 | 0.249 | -0.869, 0.108 | 0.131 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.864 | 0.379 | 0.120, 1.61 | 0.025 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
raq_difficulty | (Intercept) | 12.5 | 0.178 | 12.2, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.234 | 0.250 | -0.725, 0.256 | 0.350 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.153 | 0.183 | -0.512, 0.205 | 0.403 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.333 | 0.279 | -0.213, 0.879 | 0.235 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
raq | (Intercept) | 28.3 | 0.378 | 27.5, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.443 | 0.530 | -1.48, 0.596 | 0.405 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.491 | 0.369 | -1.21, 0.232 | 0.187 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.16 | 0.563 | 0.052, 2.26 | 0.043 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
who | (Intercept) | 14.6 | 0.574 | 13.5, 15.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.179 | 0.805 | -1.40, 1.76 | 0.824 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.107 | 0.494 | -1.07, 0.860 | 0.829 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.718 | 0.757 | -0.766, 2.20 | 0.346 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
phq | (Intercept) | 3.66 | 0.484 | 2.71, 4.60 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.095 | 0.679 | -1.24, 1.43 | 0.889 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.121 | 0.340 | -0.546, 0.788 | 0.722 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.129 | 0.524 | -1.16, 0.898 | 0.806 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
gad | (Intercept) | 3.38 | 0.456 | 2.49, 4.27 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.329 | 0.639 | -1.58, 0.924 | 0.607 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.181 | 0.376 | -0.919, 0.556 | 0.631 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.196 | 0.578 | -0.937, 1.33 | 0.736 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
nb_pcs | (Intercept) | 51.9 | 0.912 | 50.1, 53.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.497 | 1.279 | -3.00, 2.01 | 0.698 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.798 | 0.760 | -2.29, 0.692 | 0.297 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.51 | 1.167 | -0.777, 3.80 | 0.199 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
nb_mcs | (Intercept) | 50.2 | 1.103 | 48.0, 52.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.369 | 1.547 | -2.66, 3.40 | 0.812 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.12 | 1.080 | -0.997, 3.24 | 0.303 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.728 | 1.650 | -3.96, 2.51 | 0.660 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
sets
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sets with group and time_point (formula: sets ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.02 (95% CI [18.48, 19.56], t(194) = 68.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.11], t(194) = 0.90, p = 0.367; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.42], t(194) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.32], t(194) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.63])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
setv
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict setv with group and time_point (formula: setv ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.03 (95% CI [10.62, 11.45], t(194) = 51.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.85], t(194) = 0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.74], t(194) = 1.34, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.51], t(194) = -0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
maks
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict maks with group and time_point (formula: maks ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.30e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.67 (95% CI [43.72, 45.62], t(194) = 92.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.79], t(194) = 0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.57], t(194) = -0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.59], t(194) = 0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ibs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ibs with group and time_point (formula: ibs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.41 (95% CI [14.81, 16.02], t(194) = 49.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.82], t(194) = -0.07, p = 0.944; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.63], t(194) = 0.50, p = 0.618; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.28], t(194) = 1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_e
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_e with group and time_point (formula: ers_e ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.14 (95% CI [11.77, 12.51], t(194) = 64.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.66], t(194) = 0.55, p = 0.583; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.06], t(194) = -1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.98], t(194) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_r
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_r with group and time_point (formula: ers_r ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.37) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.02 (95% CI [10.64, 11.39], t(194) = 57.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.73], t(194) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.55], t(194) = 0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.86], t(194) = 0.50, p = 0.616; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_pa
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_pa with group and time_point (formula: pss_pa ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.47 (95% CI [43.33, 45.60], t(194) = 76.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.10, 2.10], t(194) = 0.62, p = 0.538; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.95, 95% CI [-2.19, 0.29], t(194) = -1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.24], t(194) = 0.37, p = 0.710; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_ps
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_ps with group and time_point (formula: pss_ps ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.67 (95% CI [24.63, 28.72], t(194) = 25.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-3.27, 2.46], t(194) = -0.28, p = 0.782; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.81], t(194) = 0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.55, 95% CI [-4.43, 1.32], t(194) = -1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss with group and time_point (formula: pss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.53e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 45.21 (95% CI [42.29, 48.12], t(194) = 30.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-5.00, 3.18], t(194) = -0.43, p = 0.664; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-0.75, 4.56], t(194) = 1.40, p = 0.160; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.82, 95% CI [-5.89, 2.25], t(194) = -0.88, p = 0.381; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_responsible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_responsible with group and time_point (formula: rki_responsible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.40e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.95 (95% CI [19.89, 22.00], t(194) = 38.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.31, 1.65], t(194) = 0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.15], t(194) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.44], t(194) = -0.14, p = 0.885; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_nonlinear
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_nonlinear with group and time_point (formula: rki_nonlinear ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.39, 13.85], t(194) = 35.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.30], t(194) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.49], t(194) = -0.64, p = 0.522; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.64], t(194) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_peer
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_peer with group and time_point (formula: rki_peer ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.47 (95% CI [19.90, 21.03], t(194) = 71.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.96], t(194) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.65], t(194) = 0.29, p = 0.775; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.95], t(194) = 0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_expect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_expect with group and time_point (formula: rki_expect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 4.60 (95% CI [4.34, 4.87], t(194) = 34.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.67], t(194) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.43], t(194) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.57], t(194) = 0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki with group and time_point (formula: rki ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 59.14 (95% CI [57.59, 60.69], t(194) = 74.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.26, 3.09], t(194) = 0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.62], t(194) = 0.15, p = 0.884; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.92], t(194) = 0.53, p = 0.597; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_possible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_possible with group and time_point (formula: raq_possible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.74 (95% CI [15.29, 16.20], t(194) = 67.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.43], t(194) = -0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.11], t(194) = -1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.12, 1.61], t(194) = 2.28, p = 0.023; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.07, 0.91])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_difficulty
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_difficulty with group and time_point (formula: raq_difficulty ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.53 (95% CI [12.18, 12.88], t(194) = 70.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.26], t(194) = -0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.20], t(194) = -0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.88], t(194) = 1.19, p = 0.232; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq with group and time_point (formula: raq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.28 (95% CI [27.54, 29.02], t(194) = 74.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.60], t(194) = -0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.23], t(194) = -1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [0.05, 2.26], t(194) = 2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [0.02, 0.79])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
who
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict who with group and time_point (formula: who ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.62 (95% CI [13.50, 15.75], t(194) = 25.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.40, 1.76], t(194) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.86], t(194) = -0.22, p = 0.828; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.77, 2.20], t(194) = 0.95, p = 0.343; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
phq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict phq with group and time_point (formula: phq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.69e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.66 (95% CI [2.71, 4.60], t(194) = 7.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.43], t(194) = 0.14, p = 0.889; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.79], t(194) = 0.36, p = 0.722; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.90], t(194) = -0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
gad
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict gad with group and time_point (formula: gad ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.38 (95% CI [2.49, 4.27], t(194) = 7.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.92], t(194) = -0.52, p = 0.607; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.56], t(194) = -0.48, p = 0.630; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.33], t(194) = 0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_pcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_pcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_pcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 51.88 (95% CI [50.09, 53.67], t(194) = 56.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-3.00, 2.01], t(194) = -0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.69], t(194) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.51, 95% CI [-0.78, 3.80], t(194) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_mcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_mcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_mcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 50.20 (95% CI [48.04, 52.37], t(194) = 45.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-2.66, 3.40], t(194) = 0.24, p = 0.811; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.24], t(194) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-3.96, 2.51], t(194) = -0.44, p = 0.659; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | null | 3 | 853.899 | 863.793 | -423.949 | 847.899 | |||
sets | random | 6 | 857.193 | 876.983 | -422.596 | 845.193 | 2.706 | 3 | 0.439 |
setv | null | 3 | 740.303 | 750.198 | -367.152 | 734.303 | |||
setv | random | 6 | 743.745 | 763.535 | -365.873 | 731.745 | 2.558 | 3 | 0.465 |
maks | null | 3 | 1,041.871 | 1,051.765 | -517.935 | 1,035.871 | |||
maks | random | 6 | 1,046.603 | 1,066.393 | -517.302 | 1,034.603 | 1.267 | 3 | 0.737 |
ibs | null | 3 | 860.393 | 870.288 | -427.197 | 854.393 | |||
ibs | random | 6 | 861.635 | 881.425 | -424.818 | 849.635 | 4.758 | 3 | 0.190 |
ers_e | null | 3 | 683.624 | 693.519 | -338.812 | 677.624 | |||
ers_e | random | 6 | 684.868 | 704.657 | -336.434 | 672.868 | 4.756 | 3 | 0.191 |
ers_r | null | 3 | 712.472 | 722.367 | -353.236 | 706.472 | |||
ers_r | random | 6 | 716.097 | 735.887 | -352.048 | 704.097 | 2.375 | 3 | 0.498 |
pss_pa | null | 3 | 1,146.225 | 1,156.120 | -570.113 | 1,140.225 | |||
pss_pa | random | 6 | 1,148.310 | 1,168.100 | -568.155 | 1,136.310 | 3.916 | 3 | 0.271 |
pss_ps | null | 3 | 1,357.294 | 1,367.189 | -675.647 | 1,351.294 | |||
pss_ps | random | 6 | 1,361.470 | 1,381.260 | -674.735 | 1,349.470 | 1.824 | 3 | 0.610 |
pss | null | 3 | 1,499.020 | 1,508.915 | -746.510 | 1,493.020 | |||
pss | random | 6 | 1,502.255 | 1,522.045 | -745.127 | 1,490.255 | 2.765 | 3 | 0.429 |
rki_responsible | null | 3 | 1,097.209 | 1,107.104 | -545.604 | 1,091.209 | |||
rki_responsible | random | 6 | 1,103.112 | 1,122.902 | -545.556 | 1,091.112 | 0.097 | 3 | 0.992 |
rki_nonlinear | null | 3 | 953.657 | 963.552 | -473.828 | 947.657 | |||
rki_nonlinear | random | 6 | 957.713 | 977.503 | -472.857 | 945.713 | 1.944 | 3 | 0.584 |
rki_peer | null | 3 | 852.516 | 862.411 | -423.258 | 846.516 | |||
rki_peer | random | 6 | 857.921 | 877.711 | -422.960 | 845.921 | 0.595 | 3 | 0.898 |
rki_expect | null | 3 | 571.795 | 581.690 | -282.898 | 565.795 | |||
rki_expect | random | 6 | 572.105 | 591.895 | -280.053 | 560.105 | 5.690 | 3 | 0.128 |
rki | null | 3 | 1,253.897 | 1,263.792 | -623.949 | 1,247.897 | |||
rki | random | 6 | 1,258.028 | 1,277.818 | -623.014 | 1,246.028 | 1.870 | 3 | 0.600 |
raq_possible | null | 3 | 779.206 | 789.101 | -386.603 | 773.206 | |||
raq_possible | random | 6 | 779.845 | 799.635 | -383.923 | 767.845 | 5.361 | 3 | 0.147 |
raq_difficulty | null | 3 | 664.506 | 674.401 | -329.253 | 658.506 | |||
raq_difficulty | random | 6 | 668.806 | 688.596 | -328.403 | 656.806 | 1.700 | 3 | 0.637 |
raq | null | 3 | 961.130 | 971.025 | -477.565 | 955.130 | |||
raq | random | 6 | 962.879 | 982.669 | -475.440 | 950.879 | 4.251 | 3 | 0.236 |
who | null | 3 | 1,108.901 | 1,118.796 | -551.450 | 1,102.901 | |||
who | random | 6 | 1,113.402 | 1,133.192 | -550.701 | 1,101.402 | 1.499 | 3 | 0.682 |
phq | null | 3 | 1,010.756 | 1,020.651 | -502.378 | 1,004.756 | |||
phq | random | 6 | 1,016.622 | 1,036.412 | -502.311 | 1,004.622 | 0.134 | 3 | 0.987 |
gad | null | 3 | 1,010.151 | 1,020.046 | -502.076 | 1,004.151 | |||
gad | random | 6 | 1,015.741 | 1,035.531 | -501.871 | 1,003.741 | 0.410 | 3 | 0.938 |
nb_pcs | null | 3 | 1,290.198 | 1,300.093 | -642.099 | 1,284.198 | |||
nb_pcs | random | 6 | 1,294.425 | 1,314.215 | -641.213 | 1,282.425 | 1.773 | 3 | 0.621 |
nb_mcs | null | 3 | 1,387.195 | 1,397.090 | -690.598 | 1,381.195 | |||
nb_mcs | random | 6 | 1,392.001 | 1,411.791 | -690.001 | 1,380.001 | 1.194 | 3 | 0.754 |
Post hoc analysis text
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
sets | 1st | 58 | 19.02 ± 2.10 | 60 | 19.37 ± 2.10 | 0.368 | -0.218 | ||
sets | 2nd | 48 | 18.82 ± 2.07 | 0.125 | 34 | 19.54 ± 2.03 | -0.108 | 0.117 | -0.451 |
setv | 1st | 58 | 11.03 ± 1.63 | 60 | 11.30 ± 1.63 | 0.377 | -0.237 | ||
setv | 2nd | 48 | 11.33 ± 1.59 | -0.267 | 34 | 11.44 ± 1.53 | -0.127 | 0.755 | -0.097 |
maks | 1st | 58 | 44.67 ± 3.69 | 60 | 45.13 ± 3.69 | 0.499 | -0.222 | ||
maks | 2nd | 48 | 44.42 ± 3.54 | 0.122 | 34 | 45.21 ± 3.30 | -0.036 | 0.302 | -0.380 |
ibs | 1st | 58 | 15.41 ± 2.36 | 60 | 15.38 ± 2.36 | 0.944 | 0.024 | ||
ibs | 2nd | 48 | 15.54 ± 2.25 | -0.100 | 34 | 16.01 ± 2.09 | -0.494 | 0.330 | -0.370 |
ers_e | 1st | 58 | 12.14 ± 1.44 | 60 | 12.28 ± 1.44 | 0.583 | -0.159 | ||
ers_e | 2nd | 48 | 11.84 ± 1.39 | 0.329 | 34 | 12.41 ± 1.33 | -0.139 | 0.060 | -0.627 |
ers_r | 1st | 58 | 11.02 ± 1.46 | 60 | 11.22 ± 1.46 | 0.460 | -0.170 | ||
ers_r | 2nd | 48 | 11.11 ± 1.45 | -0.082 | 34 | 11.49 ± 1.43 | -0.233 | 0.245 | -0.321 |
pss_pa | 1st | 58 | 44.47 ± 4.42 | 60 | 44.97 ± 4.42 | 0.539 | -0.158 | ||
pss_pa | 2nd | 48 | 43.52 ± 4.34 | 0.299 | 34 | 44.37 ± 4.21 | 0.187 | 0.370 | -0.271 |
pss_ps | 1st | 58 | 26.67 ± 7.95 | 60 | 26.27 ± 7.95 | 0.782 | 0.085 | ||
pss_ps | 2nd | 48 | 27.61 ± 7.67 | -0.196 | 34 | 25.65 ± 7.22 | 0.130 | 0.240 | 0.411 |
pss | 1st | 58 | 45.21 ± 11.33 | 60 | 44.30 ± 11.33 | 0.664 | 0.134 | ||
pss | 2nd | 48 | 47.11 ± 10.92 | -0.282 | 34 | 44.39 ± 10.28 | -0.013 | 0.251 | 0.404 |
rki_responsible | 1st | 58 | 20.95 ± 4.09 | 60 | 21.12 ± 4.09 | 0.824 | -0.065 | ||
rki_responsible | 2nd | 48 | 21.08 ± 3.97 | -0.052 | 34 | 21.14 ± 3.77 | -0.007 | 0.951 | -0.021 |
rki_nonlinear | 1st | 58 | 13.12 ± 2.82 | 60 | 13.40 ± 2.82 | 0.592 | -0.152 | ||
rki_nonlinear | 2nd | 48 | 12.88 ± 2.74 | 0.128 | 34 | 13.70 ± 2.62 | -0.165 | 0.173 | -0.445 |
rki_peer | 1st | 58 | 20.47 ± 2.19 | 60 | 20.63 ± 2.19 | 0.678 | -0.116 | ||
rki_peer | 2nd | 48 | 20.55 ± 2.13 | -0.057 | 34 | 20.80 ± 2.04 | -0.116 | 0.588 | -0.175 |
rki_expect | 1st | 58 | 4.60 ± 1.03 | 60 | 4.90 ± 1.03 | 0.118 | -0.370 | ||
rki_expect | 2nd | 48 | 4.72 ± 1.01 | -0.151 | 34 | 5.12 ± 1.00 | -0.272 | 0.081 | -0.491 |
rki | 1st | 58 | 59.14 ± 6.03 | 60 | 60.05 ± 6.03 | 0.412 | -0.238 | ||
rki | 2nd | 48 | 59.25 ± 5.84 | -0.029 | 34 | 60.78 ± 5.56 | -0.191 | 0.230 | -0.400 |
raq_possible | 1st | 58 | 15.74 ± 1.77 | 60 | 15.53 ± 1.77 | 0.524 | 0.167 | ||
raq_possible | 2nd | 48 | 15.36 ± 1.73 | 0.305 | 34 | 16.02 ± 1.67 | -0.387 | 0.087 | -0.525 |
raq_difficulty | 1st | 58 | 12.53 ± 1.36 | 60 | 12.30 ± 1.36 | 0.350 | 0.257 | ||
raq_difficulty | 2nd | 48 | 12.38 ± 1.32 | 0.168 | 34 | 12.48 ± 1.27 | -0.196 | 0.735 | -0.108 |
raq | 1st | 58 | 28.28 ± 2.88 | 60 | 27.83 ± 2.88 | 0.405 | 0.241 | ||
raq | 2nd | 48 | 27.79 ± 2.79 | 0.267 | 34 | 28.50 ± 2.66 | -0.362 | 0.242 | -0.388 |
who | 1st | 58 | 14.62 ± 4.37 | 60 | 14.80 ± 4.37 | 0.824 | -0.073 | ||
who | 2nd | 48 | 14.51 ± 4.19 | 0.044 | 34 | 15.41 ± 3.91 | -0.249 | 0.322 | -0.366 |
phq | 1st | 58 | 3.66 ± 3.69 | 60 | 3.75 ± 3.69 | 0.889 | -0.056 | ||
phq | 2nd | 48 | 3.78 ± 3.48 | -0.072 | 34 | 3.74 ± 3.15 | 0.005 | 0.963 | 0.020 |
gad | 1st | 58 | 3.38 ± 3.47 | 60 | 3.05 ± 3.47 | 0.607 | 0.176 | ||
gad | 2nd | 48 | 3.20 ± 3.32 | 0.097 | 34 | 3.06 ± 3.07 | -0.008 | 0.851 | 0.072 |
nb_pcs | 1st | 58 | 51.88 ± 6.94 | 60 | 51.38 ± 6.94 | 0.698 | 0.132 | ||
nb_pcs | 2nd | 48 | 51.08 ± 6.64 | 0.212 | 34 | 52.09 ± 6.16 | -0.189 | 0.479 | -0.268 |
nb_mcs | 1st | 58 | 50.20 ± 8.40 | 60 | 50.57 ± 8.40 | 0.812 | -0.069 | ||
nb_mcs | 2nd | 48 | 51.32 ± 8.15 | -0.208 | 34 | 50.97 ± 7.76 | -0.073 | 0.840 | 0.066 |
Between group
sets
1st
t(172.28) = 0.90, p = 0.368, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.11)
2st
t(193.56) = 1.58, p = 0.117, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.63)
setv
1st
t(161.44) = 0.89, p = 0.377, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.86)
2st
t(190.53) = 0.31, p = 0.755, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.80)
maks
1st
t(145.06) = 0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.81)
2st
t(180.21) = 1.04, p = 0.302, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.30)
ibs
1st
t(142.79) = -0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.89 to 0.83)
2st
t(177.87) = 0.98, p = 0.330, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.43)
ers_e
1st
t(154.38) = 0.55, p = 0.583, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.67)
2st
t(187.23) = 1.89, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.17)
ers_r
1st
t(177.78) = 0.74, p = 0.460, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.73)
2st
t(194.49) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.01)
pss_pa
1st
t(165.45) = 0.62, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.11)
2st
t(191.88) = 0.90, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.03 to 2.74)
pss_ps
1st
t(149.48) = -0.28, p = 0.782, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-3.30 to 2.49)
2st
t(184.00) = -1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-5.24 to 1.32)
pss
1st
t(148.95) = -0.43, p = 0.664, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-5.03 to 3.21)
2st
t(183.60) = -1.15, p = 0.251, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-7.39 to 1.94)
rki_responsible
1st
t(153.88) = 0.22, p = 0.824, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.66)
2st
t(186.94) = 0.06, p = 0.951, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.76)
rki_nonlinear
1st
t(156.21) = 0.54, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.31)
2st
t(188.22) = 1.37, p = 0.173, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.00)
rki_peer
1st
t(157.54) = 0.42, p = 0.678, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.96)
2st
t(188.88) = 0.54, p = 0.588, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.17)
rki_expect
1st
t(175.02) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.08 to 0.67)
2st
t(194.06) = 1.75, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.84)
rki
1st
t(154.11) = 0.82, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.28 to 3.10)
2st
t(187.08) = 1.20, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.98 to 4.04)
raq_possible
1st
t(163.78) = -0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.44)
2st
t(191.36) = 1.72, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.41)
raq_difficulty
1st
t(159.08) = -0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.26)
2st
t(189.58) = 0.34, p = 0.735, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.67)
raq
1st
t(154.58) = -0.84, p = 0.405, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.49 to 0.60)
2st
t(187.34) = 1.17, p = 0.242, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.91)
who
1st
t(144.88) = 0.22, p = 0.824, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.77)
2st
t(180.04) = 0.99, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.88 to 2.68)
phq
1st
t(134.35) = 0.14, p = 0.889, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.44)
2st
t(166.08) = -0.05, p = 0.963, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.42)
gad
1st
t(142.28) = -0.52, p = 0.607, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.93)
2st
t(177.30) = -0.19, p = 0.851, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.54 to 1.27)
nb_pcs
1st
t(142.90) = -0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-3.03 to 2.03)
2st
t(177.98) = 0.71, p = 0.479, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.80 to 3.83)
nb_mcs
1st
t(154.83) = 0.24, p = 0.812, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.69 to 3.43)
2st
t(187.48) = -0.20, p = 0.840, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-3.86 to 3.15)
Within treatment group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(103.04) = 0.47, p = 0.636, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.90)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(98.49) = 0.55, p = 0.582, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.66)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(91.94) = 0.15, p = 0.877, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.04)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(91.04) = 2.10, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.03 to 1.23)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(95.65) = 0.60, p = 0.551, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.55)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(105.51) = 1.03, p = 0.306, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.80)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(100.14) = -0.81, p = 0.418, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.85)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(93.70) = -0.55, p = 0.580, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.83 to 1.59)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(93.49) = 0.05, p = 0.957, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-3.04 to 3.21)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(95.45) = 0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.22)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(96.38) = 0.71, p = 0.478, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.15)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(96.92) = 0.50, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.83)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(104.25) = 1.20, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.58)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(95.55) = 0.82, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.03 to 2.50)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(99.45) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.05)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(97.54) = 0.85, p = 0.397, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.60)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(95.73) = 1.56, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.51)
who
1st vs 2st
t(91.87) = 1.06, p = 0.291, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.75)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(87.66) = -0.02, p = 0.984, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.79)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(90.84) = 0.03, p = 0.974, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.89)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(91.08) = 0.80, p = 0.424, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.05 to 2.47)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(95.83) = 0.31, p = 0.754, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.09 to 2.88)
Within control group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(89.46) = -0.63, p = 0.531, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.43)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(87.50) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.15 to 0.75)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(84.78) = -0.61, p = 0.545, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.58)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(84.42) = 0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.64)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(86.31) = -1.64, p = 0.105, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.06)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(90.56) = 0.41, p = 0.680, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.56)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(88.20) = -1.50, p = 0.137, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-2.21 to 0.31)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(85.50) = 0.98, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.84)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(85.41) = 1.40, p = 0.164, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.79 to 4.60)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(86.22) = 0.26, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.17)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(86.61) = -0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.97 to 0.50)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(86.83) = 0.29, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.66)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(90.00) = 0.76, p = 0.451, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.44)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(86.26) = 0.15, p = 0.884, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.64)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(87.90) = -1.52, p = 0.131, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.12)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(87.09) = -0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.21)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(86.34) = -1.33, p = 0.187, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.24)
who
1st vs 2st
t(84.75) = -0.22, p = 0.829, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.88)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(83.05) = 0.36, p = 0.723, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.80)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(84.33) = -0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.57)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(84.43) = -1.05, p = 0.297, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.31 to 0.71)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(86.38) = 1.04, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.03 to 3.27)